The Peel Web

I am happy that you are using
this web site and hope that you found it useful. Unfortunately, the cost of
making this material freely available is increasing, so if you have
found the site useful and would like to contribute towards its continuation,
I would greatly appreciate it. Click the button to go to Paypal and make a
donation.

The Old Poor Law 1795-1834

It relied greatly on the parish as
the unit of government, and therefore on unpaid, non-professional administrators.
Parishes were small and their finances were feeble so unusually heavy burdens
such as those experienced between 1815 and 1821 might seem disastrous at parish
level

Overseers/Justices of the Peace/contractors/Vestrymen might be petty despots.
This was removed by the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act
but the old Poor Law was more humane because those
responsible for the administration of relief knew the recipients personally

Relief may well have been greater, more well-meant and indiscriminate to
individuals. Parishes had a more democratic tradition of life but by the 1820s
this was breaking down. Since the ratepayers were the ones who provided the
money for poor relief, they were able to change the rules

It had a profound adherence to the principles of the 1601 Elizabethan Poor
Law, which had aimed to provide social stability, to alleviate discontent
and distress and to prevent riots and disaffection through outdoor relief.
Actually, it created a vast and inefficient social welfare system which originally
was based on the village/hamlet and was adapted in 1601 and 1750. After 1750
more extensive adjustments were needed because of

It rationalised local practises through, for example, the 1662 Settlement
Laws. These laws were based on the recognised practice of returning paupers
to the parish of their birth. Subsequent laws were variations on this theme.
Residence of a year and a day was required for a person to qualify for relief.

There was no consistent body of practice between 1601 and 1834. Application
of the old Poor Law was inconsistent,
very adaptable and had much geographical variation.

The Working of the Old Poor Law

the impotent poor - the sick, elderly, those unable to work - who were to
be helped via outdoor relief or in almshouses. These people were classed as
"would work but couldn't".

this group were the able-bodied paupers and it was thought that these people
"could work but wouldn't". They were to be severely beaten until
they realised the error of their ways.

Relief was given in variety of ways, and not all parishes
had a poor-house or house of correction. It soon became obvious that some parishes
were more sympathetic towards their poor, and this tended to result in paupers
moving into that area from less generous parishes. To prevent this, parliament
passed the

This stated that a person had to have a 'settlement' in order to obtain relief
from a parish. This could be secured by:

birth in the parish

marriage (in the case of a woman)

working in the parish for a year and a day

If a labourer moved away from his parish of origin in search of work the JPs
issued him with a certificate of settlement saying that if the man fell on hard
times his own parish would receive him back and pay for him to be 'removed'.

The Settlement Laws caused problems because they:

hindered the free movement of labour

prevented men from leaving overpopulated parishes in search of work on the
'off-chance' of finding employment

led to short contracts of, for example, 364 days or 51 weeks. A man might
live in a parish for 25 years, working on short contracts, and still not be
eligible for poor relief later in life.

In 1723, Sir Edward Knatchbull's legislation For Amending the Laws relating
to the Settlement, Imployment and Relief of the Poor allowed the
establishment of workhouses where poor relief would be provided. This could
be done either by an individual parish or through the combining of a number
of neighbouring parishes which would share the cost: parishes had the authority
to rent or buy appropriate accommodation. The local JPs could also sub-contract
the administration of relief to someone who would feed, clothe and house the
poor for a weekly rate from the parish. Between 1723 and 1750, about 600 parish
workhouses were established in England and Wales.

The legislation also marked the first appearance of the 'workhouse test' -
that anyone who applied for relief would have to enter the workhouse where s/he
would be obliged to undertake set work in return for relief. The principle was
that entering the workhouse should be a deterrent to
casual in irresponsible claims on the poor rates. Only the truly desperate would
apply to 'the house'. This principle was adopted under the 1834 Poor Law Amendment
Act.

A
refuge for the destitute that was maintained by charitable donations

In 1776, the first official workhouse returns were made showing the existence
of about 2,000 workhouses, each with between 20 and 50 inmates. The cost of
indoor relief was high; inefficient workhouse management led to increased social
pressure for more sympathetic treatment of the poor. This led to the passing
of Gilbert's Act in 1782.

Also in 1776, Adam Smith published
his Wealth of Nations in which he said that the State should not interfere
with the economy but should let the laws of supply and demand operate freely.
The implication of this for poor relief was that those who could not work should
be allowed to fend for themselves - and starve if necessary - rather than having
the State provide any form of relief. Further, it was thought that men would
work for any wage rather than starve themselves and their families; lower
wages would benefit employers and reduce the price of food.

Thomas Gilbert, an MP, attempted
to have this Act passed in 1765 but failed; he then spent the next 17 years
attempting to have his Bill passed. He finally succeeded in 1782. The Act allowed
groups of parishes to form unions and build joint poor-houses
for the totally destitute, in order to share the cost of poor relief through
'poor houses' which were established for looking after only the old, the sick
and the infirm. Able-bodied paupers explicitly were excluded from these poor-houses:
instead, either they were to be provided with

outdoor relief

employment near their own homes

Land-owners, farmers and other employers were to receive allowances from the
parish rates so they could bring wages up to subsistence levels. Gilbert's Act
is often used to demonstrate the government's humanitarianism but it was even
more important in expanding the scope of poor relief and attempting to bring
the gentry into closer involvement in poor relief administration.

This first saw light of day in 1795. It was introduced by the magistrates
in the Berkshire village of Speenhamland (or Speen) in an effort to relieve
the extreme poverty which existed and was adopted widely. The administration
of poor relief was in the hands of about 15,000 parishes and few public men
had any precise idea of the true situation. The general feeling was that poor
relief was increasing on an unprecedented scale and the reaction to this came
after 1815. The Speenhamland system became widespread in southern England and
was extensively used in the so-called 'Swing'
counties. It offered any one, or several forms of relief:

allowances to supplement earned wages, which was the basis of the Speenhamland
and other similar systems. The amount of relief to be given was calculated
on the price of a gallon loaf of bread (weighing 8lb. 7oz.) and the number
of children a man had. Some areas allowed between 1/6d
and 2/6d per child and it was this method which caused Malthus to comment
that poor labourers had large families
so they could claim on the poor rates although there was no proof of this.
The idea of a 'supplementary benefit' of cash or flour was not new and it
was intended only as a temporary measure.

the labour rate operated by a price being put on a labourer's work. The
rate-payers could choose between paying a labourer or paying the rate. If
the wage was less than the fixed rate, the employer had to pay the difference
also. Labourers were sent round to ratepayers who employed whoever they wished,
paying a set wage per man, the best workers costing more. This was not a common
system

under the roundsman system, the able-bodied unemployed worked in rotation.
They were sent in turn to farmers who paid a part of the wages and the parish
paid the rest.

By 1796 outdoor relief was given without a workhouse test because it was a
period of widespread distress and unrest. Also many paupers were not able-bodied
and parishes were not big enough to cope with the problems.

In 1818 the Act for the Regulation of Parish Vestries (58 Geo. III c. 69 was
passed. This set up a plural voting system in a parish vestry, depending on
the rateable value of property. A landowner of property worth £50 was
eligible for one vote; for every further £25 a man was given another vote
up to a maximum of six votes. This scale was used later by the Poor Law Amendment
Act for the election of Guardians of the Poor.

The following year, the Act to Amend the Law for the Relief of the Poor (59
Geo. III c.12) was passed. This added a resident clergyman to the ex-officio
members of the vestry. Vestries were told to distinguish between the 'deserving'
and 'undeserving' poor. The latter group was deemed to be idle, extravagant
and/or profligate. This Act provided for the employment of salaried overseers,
better-kept accounts and either the building or enlargement of workhouses.
Also, under this legislation, two JPs were needed to agree to force the Vestry
to give poor relief, rather than only one JP as before. This was intended
to prevent
"generous" JPs from helping anyone who appealed for assistance. Together
these two pieces of legislation are known either as the Select Vestries
Acts
or the Sturges-Bourne Acts after the MP who was responsible for them.

Conflicting Views of the Old Poor Law

The allowance system became common during the
French Wars and the general adoption of the Speenhamland (type) system met
with little opposition. The cost of poor relief reached new peaks even in relation
to the increased population.

In 1815 there was much political and social
unrest because of the ending
of the French Wars, the industrial and agricultural depression and the increase
in unemployment. Attitudes towards the poor changed. There was a growing belief
in the rural south that charity, over and beyond the relief of dire necessity,
led to idleness and vice. There was also a belief that allowances and subsidies
created excess rural population and idleness. The problem of poor relief was
considered by parliamentary enquiries which led to the Poor
Law Commission of 1832-34. Its report was influential
and affected poor relief policy into the 20th century.

However, in the industrial north, attitudes towards poor relief were different
from those to be found in the south. As industry developed, there was a need
for workers and if there was work, then most people were employed. If there
was no work, then everyone was unemployed. This was particularly true in the
textile districts where the anti-Poor Law campaign was at its strongest. It
was generally believed that the existing systems of
poor relief were more than adequate to meet the needs of the unemployed and
others in need of relief.

These materials may be freely used for
non-commercial purposes in accordance with applicable statutory allowances
and distribution to students. Re-publication in any
form is subject to written permission.